|
Hmm...
One could say that proof and logical are both non-existant.
Take for example this:
Color is dependant on wavelengths of light reflecting fmor a surface, entering your eye, fed through the optic nerve into your brain and processed into what you see. "Red" is a set wavelength of x nm. How, in the end, you interpret that wavelength may very greatly. Colorblindness is a perfect example. Cones or rods (forget which) do not work properly or are missing, and therefore some colors appear the same. But less specifically, how is it that you can guarantee what you see as red is the same as what I see as red? We've both been "trained" to say red when we see a specific color. But what I see as red, you could see as blue and vice versa. I'd still always call it red, and so would you.
This is a poor example for the overall, but it makes a simple point. You're proof and your logic might not be mine and that doesn't nessecarily make one right nad one wrong. Realistically they could both be right... or they could both be wrong. Or, perhaps there is no right and wrong...
Proof is only what it's allowed to be to you... Logic is just the way you let it be believed.
|